In response to Splatman Phanutier,
First off, many of these expansion teams were committed before 1994. When these teams were entering the league, financial contraints weren't such a media headline as they are now.
As well, its one thing to get interest from a few cities (Columbas, Atlanta, Nashville, Minnisota are the only 4 since 1996). How much more interest is there? Portland is the only one I know of. Winnipeg might be looking to regain a team, but I hear the Manitoba Moose are quite happy being the prime residents and arn't looking for a NHL team or NHLPA team taking over.
Also, these teams expanded under different spotlights in regards to financial troubles: Back then, it made 12th page in the Sports section. Seeing as how the pro league in NA to cancel an entire season, and given the Levitt lockout, I can't see many investers flooding the gates investing in an industry that saw its former collapse.
Incorrect. According to Gil Stein, former head of the NHL and author of
Power Plays, he states that "in June of 1997, the NHL followed the precedent of the Plan of Third Expansion when it announced a new 3-phase plan, expanding to Nashville in 1998, to Atlanta in 1999, and to St. Paul, Minnesota and Columbus, Ohio, in 2000 (Stein, 64). Furthermore, financial contraints were also well known in the media. Hence CBC's "The New Ice Age", made between 1997-98, clearly documenting the rise in player salaries (
http://www.whitepinepictures.com/iceage.html). Despite the whole the NHL was digging itself into, it continued to expand, despite its unhealthy (supposibly anyway) situation.
When it comes to interest in hockey, there may not be much in the US (although Kansas City is rumoured once again), but I can guarantee that there is in Canada. Despite the Moose's success, Winnipeg is still dieing for an NHL team. Same with Saskatoon and Quebec City and others.
I fail to see your point about back paged financial troubles and its impact on whether to expand or not. The bottom line is the NHL knew as well as the business community, yet they still expanded, for the most part, to untraditional cities.
Are these cities willing to commit? I know alot of CHL teams, fearing loses to the number of CHL fans, won't want competition in their small town. Thats why the Edmonton Ice never surivived in Edmonton. That's why Calgary isn't putting a NHL, WHL and AHL all in one city. These small towns likely won't be on board with risking their resident CHL franchise to bankrupcy, as the NHLPA league will collapse when NHL play resumes.
The Hitmen are pretty profittable last time I checked. In fact, since they're owned by the Flames, they're making them money while they don't even play. If CHL teams are worried about fans leaving, then have the PAHL work with them. Have double hitters-fans tickets go to both the players league and the CHL matchup. I'd go for the 2 for 1 deal. Also, if the CHL team owns the rink, that PAHL team has to pay rent, giving the CHL team more money.
Besides the fact that the NHLPA league won't create much income as it is (they're better off playing in the UHL and the tier 4 French league) you think players would be willing to spend MORE and risk their career AND income? Doubtful.
Are they really better off in the Uhaul league? I'd say there more at risk from some wacko mifted at the players. It'll be tough to create, but if they are committed, it'll work. If they created and gave 112% into their league, it would truly show the fans what they really play and stand for.
As nice as that sounds, I can't see that possibly working.
Why not? We got the technology. I think it'd be the greatest lure for fans to come and watch, as it really would be their team. Heck, even get them to make a payrole or something. Create a minimum salaray for players, then let the fans decide who gets most of their money. Fantasy pools come to life.
So in other words, what I said.
Easy way to counter it: Have a stipulation on the cap where players who are with the franchise for more then 3 years get a leeway of 10%. Maybe a similar system to teams' own draftee's.
Then you create an even worse situation, especially for the small market teams. Three years and players could be gone, especially if he can go to a team that can offer and pay his full 10% leeway. Caps are no good, period. Full out revenue sharing is the key and the only right way to go.
Fair enough. The NHLPA could play that card (I don't follow the off-ice crap of crimes and fraud and whatnot) but the NHL could counter by putting the spotlight on Dany Heatley, Mike Danton, Todd Bertuzzi and other NHL criminals. The end result? Everyone loses, and the gong-show of a circus runs the NHL down into a tier 2 sport below WWE's farm league wresting.
You should. By not following their criminal history, you're allowing these unjustices to occur. Heck, your allowing them to steal from you.
Owner: "We're so poor, we have to raise prices to compete..."
Fan: "Well I guess I better support my Blackhawks, even though the owner has hurt himself by blacking out home games and getting no one worth seeing."
Knowing their history, would you believe their crys of poverty now?
And what happened to those players? Danton's in jail, Bertuzzi still can't play, and Heatley got off only because of Snyder's parents. Besides, having 3 guys, or even a bit more in law trouble, out of 700 is a pretty good ratio; much better than what the owners have.
Not a good idea
Take note, Bob Goodenow.
Hey I didn't say it would happen. But imagine if it did. Coming from an unpopular guy like that, I think it'd mean an awful lot.
I think the best thing the league ever did was put on a gag order. Alot of the players look nothing but stupid, and turn the fans off more and more.
Well, on the one hand it forces unity, but on the other it looks like they're hidding something. But again, having the media not blow this gag order up in their face is a big reason for why its done so well.